Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Semirings

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Semiring pairs regain roots, determinants, and Cayley-Hamilton

desk verdict The survey is useful and honest, but the new root theorem (Theorem 3.13) has a genuine proof gap, so the flagship root-counting results are not yet established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.19209 v4 pith:TFSWHBDS submitted 2026-02-22 math.RA math.RT

Louis Halle Rowen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RAmath.RT MSC 16Y2016Y6012K1014T1006A1220M25
keywords semiringspairsPropertyNsurpassingrelationtropicalalgebrahyperfields†-determinantsCayley-Hamilton
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that many classical algebraic theorems survive for semirings (structures with addition and multiplication but no subtraction) if one stops forcing equality and instead works with a designated 'null part' inside the semiring and a 'surpassing relation' that behaves like an inequality. The central claim is that the pair (A, A0), taken together with a mild assumption called Property N, which supplies a substitute for negatives, is enough to generalize polynomials and their roots, determinants, matrix theory, linear algebra, varieties, and module theory. The concrete flagship results are that, under a T-reversibility condition, tangible roots coincide with surpassing-relation roots, that a monic polynomial over an A0-domain has at most n distinct tangible surpassing-relation roots, and that Cayley-Hamilton, Laplace, and Cauchy-Binet identities hold for the paper's dagger-determinants. If the framework is right, the tropical and idempotent semirings that motivated it inherit a working algebraic geometry and linear algebra.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pair (A, A0), where A is a T-semiring (an additive monoid with multiplication by a monoid T of 'tangible' elements, assumed central) and A0 is a distinguished T-submodule called the null part, playing the role of zero. The surpassing relation is a preorder compatible with the T-module structure, satisfying 0 precedes b for all b in A0; it replaces equality in all statements. Property N (for 'negation') adds an invertible element 1-dagger with 1 + 1-dagger = e, and requires e to be the unique element of A0 of the form 1 + a with a in T. The paper also uses the dagger-determinant, |A|_dagger = |A|_+ + |A|_dagger_- , where the two parity sums of tracks are combined wit

What would settle it

In the hyperpair of the phase hyperfield (where addition of non-antipodal complex numbers is an open arc), count distinct tangible surpassing-relation roots of a monic polynomial of degree 5; the theorem predicts at most 5, so 6 distinct roots would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the obstruction to algebraic structure in semirings is the use of equality and zero. Replacing them with a pair (A, A0), where A0 is a designated null submodule, and with a surpassing relation (a preorder compatible with the T-module structure and satisfying 0 precedes b for b in A0) yields a framework where the classical theorems hold up to the surpassing relation. Property N guarantees an element 1-dagger with unique e = 1 + 1-dagger in A0, providing the necessary 'negation'. Then, under T-reversibility, Theorem 3.13 shows tangible roots and surpassing-relation roots of polynomials coincide, and Theorem 3.15 bounds the number of distinct tangible surpassing-relat

Load-bearing premise

Every pair must satisfy Property N, meaning there is an invertible element 1-dagger whose sum with 1 yields a unique element e in the null part; idempotent semirings with their natural trivial null part fail this, so the theory engages only after one constructs a suitable null part.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Cayley-Hamilton theorem holds for matrices over any semiring pair satisfying Property N, so characteristic polynomials annihilate their matrices up to the surpassing relation.
  • A monic polynomial over an A0-domain has at most degree-many distinct tangible surpassing-relation roots, generalizing the classical root bound to tropical and hyperfield settings.
  • The dagger-determinant satisfies Laplace expansion and the Cauchy-Binet formula, making Cramer-type linear algebra possible over pairs.
  • The Zariski correspondence between A0-loci and congruences opens a concrete path to a Nullstellensatz for semiring pairs, with prime congruence spectra already defined.
  • The categorical treatment yields three kinds of morphisms (paired homomorphisms, weak morphisms, and surpassing-relation morphisms), letting algebraic constructions such as tensor products extend to pairs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because Property N is stated as an existence condition, a practical next step is to classify which semirings admit a null part satisfying it; the paper notes that the basic Boolean semiring with trivial null part fails, so the theory's reach outside constructed examples is an open quantitative question.
  • The dagger-determinant construction might be used to define a notion of rank via maximal nonsingular minors in idempotent semirings; the paper does not pursue this, but its matrix identities give the needed tools.
  • If the root-bound theorem continues to hold when the uniqueness of e is dropped but Property N is retained, the framework could be relaxed further; the paper suggests that uniqueness of e may be more than is strictly necessary, leaving the boundary untested.
  • The surpassing-relation formalism suggests interpreting classical identities as inequalities with controlled error in the null part; this could inspire quantitative versions of algebraic geometry over ordered and tropical semirings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper surveys a framework for semirings that are not additively cancellative, in which a distinguished "null part" A_0 replaces zero and a "surpassing relation" replaces equality. The framework is built on T-pairs with Property N, T-reversibility, metatangibility, and related axioms, and is applied to polynomial roots, algebraic geometry, matrices, linear algebra, varieties, categories, and module pairs. The principal concrete claims are Theorem 3.13 (tangible roots coincide with ⪯-roots under T-reversibility, with fissure for the converse), Theorem 3.15/Proposition 3.15 (a monic polynomial over an A_0-domain has at most n distinct tangible ⪯-roots), Theorem 5.4 (Cayley-Hamilton for matrix pairs), and Theorem 5.7 (Laplace and Cauchy-Binet identities for †-determinants). Much of the paper is expository and refers to the author's prior work for proofs.

Significance. If the central theorems were fully established, the framework would provide a genuinely useful unified language for supertropical, hyperfield, doubled-pair, and other non-cancellative semiring settings, and would generalize classical root, determinant, and linear-algebra theorems. The paper is careful to stress-test the definitions on explicit examples, including the adversarial A = T_0 ∪ {e} of §2.1.2 and the explicit counterexample in Remark 3.11, and it is candid about places where work remains. These are real strengths. However, the flagship bridge theorem (Theorem 3.13) has a proof gap that is load-bearing: the downstream root-counting results (Corollary 3.14, Proposition 3.15, Corollary 5.5 and the eigenvalue discussion of §5.4) depend on it. The paper's significance is therefore conditional on repairing that proof or suitably restricting the statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 3.13(i), §3] The proof of the direction '⪯-root ⇒ root' contains an unjustified coefficient-cancellation step. From α_i ⪯ (−)a β_i + β_{i−1}, the proof asserts (−)β_{i−1} ⪯ (−)α_i (−)aβ_i, and then β_{i−1} ⪯ α_i + aβ_i. No axiom of pre-surpassing relations or T-reversibility (Definition 2.7) permits this. The pre-order is only compatible with the T-action and addition; it is not cancellative, and T-reversibility concerns sums landing in A_0, not arbitrary inequalities. The parenthetical appeal to Lemma 2.9 is also directionally wrong: Lemma 2.9 shows that strong T-reversibility implies unique negation and T-reversibility, not the converse. Thus the claimed implication is not established by the argument as written.
  2. [Theorem 3.13(ii), §3] The converse direction is not proved in the manuscript. The proof says: 'Reversing the argument of (i), following the proof of [17, Proposition 4.7] (where I think one needs to take f tangible).' The caveat indicates that the stated version, for arbitrary f ∈ A[λ], may not be covered by the cited argument. Since Corollary 3.14, Proposition 3.15, and Corollary 5.5 all rely on the full equivalence in Theorem 3.13, the statement must either be proved in the text under its stated hypotheses or weakened to the tangible-polynomial case, with the downstream results adjusted accordingly.
  3. [Lemma 2.16(i), §2.0.3] The proof of Lemma 2.16(i) appears to contain a logical error/typo. It says: 'If a_{t−1}+a_t ∈ A_0, we can replace a_{t−1} by a_{t−1}+a_t and lower t. Hence we may assume that a_{t−1}+a_t ∈ A_0.' The second line is the opposite of what the first line requires, and replacing two tangible elements by their sum destroys tangibility, so the induction hypothesis (stated for a_i ∈ T) cannot be applied to the reduced tuple. Since Lemma 2.16(ii) is one route to T-reversibility for metatangible pairs, this proof needs to be repaired or the lemma re-proved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 3.9] The statement lists parts (i)–(iii), but the proof refers to '(iv) By (iii)...' The numbering should be corrected.
  2. [§9.0.1] The sentence 'Tensor products of weak morphisms and ⪯-morphisms are considerably subtler. treated in Tensor products of module pairs are seen in [53, Corollaries 4.15, 4.16]...' is duplicated and garbled; one copy should be deleted.
  3. [§5.3] Typographical errors: 'mutatus mutandus' should be 'mutatis mutandis', and 'arrranged' should be 'arranged'.
  4. [Major Note 2.6 / §2.1.2] The paper could more explicitly state as a limitation that an idempotent ZSF semiring with its trivial null part does not satisfy Property N, and that the framework therefore applies only after constructing a suitable null part. The text acknowledges this, but a reader would benefit from a summary of which of the main theorems require that constructed null part.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the root/⪯-root bridge is not definitionally forced; main self-citations are survey-style dependencies, and flagged coefficient-cancellation is a proof gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper defines roots (Def. 3.3: f(b)∈A0) and ⪯-roots (Def. 3.12: f⪯(λ(−)a)g) separately; Thm 3.13 tries to prove their equivalence, and Remark 3.11 explicitly notes the naive converse fails, so the two notions are not identified by construction. No fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The heavy self-citation (e.g., Thm 5.4: 'Proof. By [4, Theorem E], applied to the doubled pair ( ˆA, ˆA0)'; Thm 5.7: 'We reformulate [4, Theorem F]') is dependence on the same group's prior work; for a paper that announces itself as a survey ('We survey theory developed over the past 10 years'), this does not reduce the present derivation to its own inputs. The genuine problems are correctness gaps, not circularity: the cancellation/negation step in Thm 3.13(i) is not justified by the Definition 2.7 axioms, part (ii) is deferred to [17] with 'I think one needs to take f tangible', and Thm 5.12 is asserted without proof. These should be weighed as correctness risk, not as circularity. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

Pure mathematics: no data fitting anywhere. The reader-paid input is structural: the null-part/surpassing-relation/Property N triple, hypotheses (T-reversibility, fissure, metatangibility, T-centrality) switched on per theorem, and one engineered A_0 in a counterexample. The invented entities are framework gadgets; their independent evidence is external realization in supertropical/hyperfield/tropical examples, not an independent falsifiable prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • choice of surpassing relation ⪯
    Example 2.10 offers several candidate pre-orders (minimal ⪯_0, ⊆ for hyperpairs, ⪯_◦ for first-kind pairs); which one is in force determines whether key hypotheses (T-reversibility, fissure, strong reversibility) hold. Hand-chosen structural input, not forced by the pair axioms.
  • choice of 1† (Property N element) = arbitrary; e = 1+1†
    Major Note 2.6(i): 'We arbitrarily choose 1†, which need not be uniquely determined.' Theorems such as Lemmas 2.5 and 2.16 bind their conclusions to the chosen e.
  • null part A_0 in the Remark 3.11 counterexample = A_0 = diag + (x1x2+x1x3+x2x3)A + (Σ x_i)A
    Engineered by hand so that f(x_1) ∉ A_0 'since it has too few monomials'; the counterexample's force depends on this exact choice, and the containment is asserted rather than demonstrated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Every pair satisfies Property N (existence of invertible 1† with unique e = 1+1† ∈ A_0)
    Imposed at Major Note 2.6 and Definition 2.4. This is the paper's replacement for negation and excludes idempotent (ZSF) trivial pairs from the framework's scope.
  • domain assumption Faithful T-modules and centrality of T in A
    Definition 1.28(2) and the paragraph after Definition 1.29: 'we also assume throughout this exposition that ab = bι(a) and b_1(ab_2) = a(b_1b_2) = (ab_1)b_2... i.e., the copy of T in A is central.' All structure theorems assume these.
  • ad hoc to paper T-reversibility / strong T-reversibility / fissure of the surpassing relation
    Lemma 2.9, Theorem 3.13, Corollary 3.14 and Lemma 2.11 take these as hypotheses; they are imposed conditions, not consequences of pair axioms. Major Note 2.17(i) observes metatangibility alone does not give strong reversibility.
  • ad hoc to paper Metatangibility (or weak metatangibility) in §3 root factorization
    Proposition 3.10 and Lemma 3.9 use it to force the quotient polynomial g to be tangible; §2.1.2(v) notes A^S and A[M] over metatangible A need not be weakly metatangible.
  • standard math Classical algebra results as benchmark (Cayley-Hamilton, Laplace, Cauchy-Binet over commutative rings)
    Theorems 5.4 and 5.7 generalize these classical facts; Major Note 2.19 fixes the classical case as A over a commutative ring C with A_0 = {0}. The classical results are external benchmarks, not inputs.
invented entities (3)
  • null part / null ideal A_0 (T-submodule with converse property) independent evidence
    purpose: Replaces the zero element; carries negation-like content in non-cancellative semirings
    Anchored externally: supertropical pair (T(T;G), G), hyperpair (P(H), P(H)_0), and doubled pair (Â, Â_0) all realize it; adequacy is tested by classical theorems generalizing. But its choice inside a given pair is paper-internal data, and the adversarial example (§2.1.2) shows 'little control' in general.
  • surpassing relation ⪯ independent evidence
    purpose: Replaces equality as the working comparison relation
    Realized externally by ⊆ in hyperpairs and by ⪯_0 order in tropical/supertropical examples (Example 2.10, Lemma 8.5 with −val); however, which relation to use is hand-chosen and changes theorem hypotheses.
  • Property N element 1† and ghost element e = 1+1†
    purpose: Formal negation surrogate; uniqueness of e is the key axiom
    Internal to the framework (Definition 2.4); existence is postulated and 1† is arbitrarily chosen. It reduces to an ordinary negation map only in the special case where ((−)1)^2 = 1 (Note 2.6(ii)).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semirings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TFSWHBDS

@misc{pith2026260219209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semirings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TFSWHBDS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.19209}
}
abstract

We survey theory developed over the past 10 years of semirings which need not be additively cancellative. The main features are a specified ``null ideal'' $\mcA_0$ of a semiring $\mcA,$ taking the place of a zero element, and a ``surpassing relation,'' taking the place of equality, which permit generalizations of the classical algebraic theory to polynomials and their roots, algebraic geometry, matrices, linear algebra, varieties, categories, and module theory. The ``pair'' $(\mcA,\mcA_0)$ is studied along the lines of universal algebra.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Roots of polynomials over semirings and hyperfields

    math.RA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Proves a fundamental theorem of algebra for pairs over semirings and hyperfields: tangible polynomials with sufficient roots ≼-split into linear factors over finite extensions, with additional results on almost-equal ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Akian, S

    M. Akian, S. Gaubert, and A. Guterman,Linear independence over tropical semirings and beyond, Proceedings of the International Conference on Tropical and Idempotent Mathematics, ed. G.L. Litvinov and S.N. Sergeev, Contemporary Mathematics, Amer. Math. Soc.495 (2009), 1–38

    2009

  2. [2]

    Akian, S

    M. Akian, S. Gaubert, and A. Guterman,Tropical Cramer determinants revisited, Proceedings of the International Conference on Tropical and Idempotent Mathematics, ed. G.L. Litvinov and S.N. Sergeev, Contemporary Mathematics616, Amer. Math. Soc. , (2014), 1–45

    2014

  3. [3]

    Akian, S

    M. Akian, S. Gaubert, and L. Rowen,Semiring systems arising from hyperrings, Journal Pure Applied Algebra, to appear (2024), ArXiv 2207.06739

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Akian, S

    M. Akian, S. Gaubert, and L. Rowen,Linear algebra overT-pairs(2023), arXiv 2310.05257

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Akian, S

    M. Akian, S. Gaubert, and H. Tavakolipour,Factorization of polynomials over the symmetrized tropical semiring and Descartes’ rule of sign over ordered valued fields, Journal Pure Applied Algebra 229 (2025), 108055

    2025

  6. [6]

    Baker and O

    M. Baker and O. Lorscheid,Descartes’ rule of signs, Newton polygons, and polynomials over hyperfields, J. Algebra 569 (2021), 416–441

    2021

  7. [7]

    Baker and T

    M. Baker and T. Zhang,On some notions of rank for matrices over tracts, (2022), arXiv:2202.02356

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Bowler and T

    N. Bowler and T. Su.Classification of doubly distributive skew hyperfields and stringent hypergroups, Journal of Algebra 574 (2021), pp. 669–698. issn: 0021-8693. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2021.01.031. arXiv: 2003. 03751 [math.RA]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2021.01.031 2021

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Connes and C

    A. Connes and C. Consani,From monoids to hyperstructures: in search of an absolute arith- metic, Casimir Force, Casimir Operators and the Riemann Hypothesis, de Gruyter, pages 147–198 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Corti˜ nas, C

    G. Corti˜ nas, C. Haesemeyer, M. Walker and C. Weibel,Toric varieties, monoid schemes and cdh descent, Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) Volume 698 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1515/crelle-2012-0123

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Dolzan, P

    D. Dolzan, P. Oblak, Invertible and nilpotent matrices over antirings, Linear Algebra and its Applications 430 (2009), 271—278

    2009

  4. [12]

    Dress,Duality theory for finite and infinite matroids with coefficients, Advances in Math- ematics 93(2) (1986), 214–250

    A. Dress,Duality theory for finite and infinite matroids with coefficients, Advances in Math- ematics 93(2) (1986), 214–250

    1986

  5. [13]

    Gatto and L

    L. Gatto and L. Rowen,Lie pairs, Communications in Mathematics 32 (2024), Issue 2 (Special issue: CIMPA schools ”Nonassociative Algebras and related topics, Brazil’2023” and ”Current Trends in Algebra, Philippines’2024”) - https://doi.org/10.46298/cm.12413 arXiv 2309.03867

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gaubert,Th´ eorie des syst` emes lin´ eaires dans les diodes.Th` ese,´Ecole des Mines de Paris, (1992)

    S. Gaubert,Th´ eorie des syst` emes lin´ eaires dans les diodes.Th` ese,´Ecole des Mines de Paris, (1992)

    1992

  7. [15]

    Gathmann,Tropical algebraic geometry, Jahresber

    A. Gathmann,Tropical algebraic geometry, Jahresber. Deutsch. Math.-Verein. 108 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Golan.The theory of semirings with applications in mathematics and theoretical computer science, Longman Sci & Tech., volume 54, (1992)

    J. Golan.The theory of semirings with applications in mathematics and theoretical computer science, Longman Sci & Tech., volume 54, (1992)

    1992

  9. [17]

    Gunn,Tropical extensions and Baker-Lorscheid multiplicities for idylls, Commun

    S. Gunn,Tropical extensions and Baker-Lorscheid multiplicities for idylls, Commun. Algebra 53 (1) (2025) 63–89

    2025

  10. [18]

    Hobby,Blocks in Finite Hyperfields, arXiv:2507.18908, (2025)

    D. Hobby,Blocks in Finite Hyperfields, arXiv:2507.18908, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Hobby and J Jun,Nontrivial solutions for homogeneous linear equations over some non- quotient hyperfields, Proc

    D. Hobby and J Jun,Nontrivial solutions for homogeneous linear equations over some non- quotient hyperfields, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 152(6), 2353–2367 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Hutchins and H

    H. Hutchins and H. Weinert,Homomorphisms and kernels of semifields, Periodica Mathe- matica Hungarica21 (2)(1990), 113–152

    1990

  13. [21]

    Itenberg, G

    I. Itenberg, G. Mikhalkin, E.I. Shustin. Tropical Algebraic Geometry (Oberwolfach Seminars,

  14. [22]

    Izhakian,Tropical arithmetic & algebra of tropical matrices, Preprint at arXiv:math.AG/0505458, 2005

    Z. Izhakian,Tropical arithmetic & algebra of tropical matrices, Preprint at arXiv:math.AG/0505458, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Izhakian, M

    Z. Izhakian, M. Knebusch, and L. Rowen, Categorical notions of layered tropical algebra and geometry, Algebraic and combinatorial aspects of tropical geometry, Contemp. Math., 589, Amer. Math. Soc. (2013), 191–234

    2013

  16. [24]

    Pure Appl

    ,Supertropical quadratic forms I, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 220, no. 1 (2016), 61—93

    2016

  17. [25]

    Izhakian and L

    Z. Izhakian and L. Rowen.Supertropical algebra, Advances in Mathematics, 225(4) (2010), 2222–2286

    2010

  18. [26]

    ,Supertropical matrix algebra, Israel J. Math. 182(1), 383–424 (2011). SEMIRINGS 33

    2011

  19. [27]

    Supertropical matrix algebra II: Solving tropical equations, Israel J. Math. 186(1), 383–424 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Jacobson Basic algebra 1 (2ed., Freeman, 1985)(ISBN 0716714809)

    N. Jacobson Basic algebra 1 (2ed., Freeman, 1985)(ISBN 0716714809)

    1985

  21. [29]

    Jagiello,Tensor products in concrete categories, Demonstratio Math

    D. Jagiello,Tensor products in concrete categories, Demonstratio Math. 32, No.2 (1999), 273–280

    1999

  22. [30]

    Jo´ o, and K

    D. Jo´ o, and K. Mincheva,Prime congruences of additively idempotent semirings and a Null- stellensatz for tropical polynomials, Selecta Mathematica 24 (3), (2018), 2207–2233

    2018

  23. [31]

    J. Jun, K. Mincheva, and L. Rowen,Projective module systems, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 224 (5), (2020), 106–243

    2020

  24. [32]

    ,Homology of systemic modules, Manuscripta Mathematica, (2021), 1–52

    2021

  25. [33]

    Martin Gavalec, Kybernetika 58 (2022), 733–759

    ,T-semiring pairs, volume in honour of Prof. Martin Gavalec, Kybernetika 58 (2022), 733–759

    2022

  26. [34]

    Katsov,Tensor products of functors, Siberian J

    Y. Katsov,Tensor products of functors, Siberian J. Math. 19 (1978), 222-229, trans. from Sirbiskii Mathematischekii Zhurnal 19 no. 2 , 318–327 (1978)

    1978

  27. [35]

    Katsov and T.G

    Y. Katsov and T.G. Nam, Morita equivalence and homological characterization of semirings, Journal of Algebra and Its Applications Vol. 10, No. 3 (2011), 445–473

    2011

  28. [36]

    Krasner,A class of hyperrings and hyperfields, Internat

    M. Krasner,A class of hyperrings and hyperfields, Internat. J. Math. & Math. Sci. 6 no. 2, 307–312 (1983)

    1983

  29. [37]

    (eds) Coping with Complexity: Model Reduction and Data Analysis

    Litvinov, G.L., Maslov, V.P., Rodionov, A.Y., Sobolevski, A.N.Universal Algorithms, Math- ematics of Semirings and Parallel Computations.In: Gorban, A., Roose, D. (eds) Coping with Complexity: Model Reduction and Data Analysis. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engine...

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    Lorscheid,The geometry of blueprints Part I, Advances in Mathematics 229, no

    O. Lorscheid,The geometry of blueprints Part I, Advances in Mathematics 229, no. 3, 1804- 1846, (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    European Mathematical Society Publishing House, (2016)

    ,A blueprinted view onF 1-geometry, Absolute Arithmetic andF 1-geometry (edited by Koen Thas). European Mathematical Society Publishing House, (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Maclagan and B

    D. Maclagan and B. Sturmfels,Introduction to Tropical Geometry, Graduate Studies in Mathematics161, Amer. Math. Soc. (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Marty,Rˆ ole de la notion de hypergroupe dans l’´ etude de groupes non abeliens, Comptes Rendus Acad

    F. Marty,Rˆ ole de la notion de hypergroupe dans l’´ etude de groupes non abeliens, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris 201, (1935), 636–638

    1935

  34. [42]

    Massouros, C.G., Methods of constructing hyperfields. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 1985, 8, 725–728

    1985

  35. [43]

    Massouros and G

    C. Massouros and G. Massouros,On the Borderline of Fields and Hyperfields, Mathematics 11, (2023), 1289, URL= https://doi.org/ 10.3390/math11061289

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Mittas,Sur les hyperanneaux et les hypercorps, Math

    J. Mittas,Sur les hyperanneaux et les hypercorps, Math. Balk 3, ( 1973), 368–382

    1973

  37. [45]

    Nakamura, and M.L

    S. Nakamura, and M.L. Reyes,Categories of hypermagmas, hypergroups, and related hyper- structures, arXiv:2304.09273

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pop,On tensor products in concrete categories, Demonstrate Mathematica 33 (4), 707–718, (2000)

    I. Pop,On tensor products in concrete categories, Demonstrate Mathematica 33 (4), 707–718, (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Reutenauer and H

    C. Reutenauer and H. Straubing, Inversion of matrices over a commutative semiring, J. Al- gebra,88(1984), 350—360

    1984

  40. [48]

    Rowen,Ring Theory, Vol

    L.H. Rowen,Ring Theory, Vol. I, Academic Press, Pure and Applied Mathematics127, (1988)

    1988

  41. [49]

    ,Graduate algebra: Noncommutative view, AMS Graduate Studies in Mathematics91 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    ,Algebras with a negation map, European J. Math. Vol.8(2022), 62–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40879-021-00499-0, arXiv:1602.00353

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Math., to appear, arXiv 2403.09467

    ,Residue Structures, Cont. Math., to appear, arXiv 2403.09467

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    , The prime congruence spectrum of a pair, JAA (2025), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219498827500605

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    ,Tensor products of bimodules over monoids, http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00992

  46. [54]

    Takahashi, On the bordism categories III, Math

    M. Takahashi, On the bordism categories III, Math. Seminar Notes Kobe University 10 (1982), 211–236

    1982

  47. [55]

    H. S. Vandiver.Note on a simple type of algebra in which the cancellation law of addition does not hold, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 40(12): 914-920 (December 1934)

    1934

  48. [56]

    Vechtomov and A

    E. Vechtomov and A. Cheraneva,Semifields and their Properties, Journal of Mathematical Sciences163 (2009), 625–661. 34 LOUIS HALLE ROWEN

    2009

  49. [57]

    Vechtomov and D

    E. Vechtomov and D. Chuprakov,The principal kernels of semifields of continuous positive functions, Journal of Mathematical Sciences163 (2009), 500–514

    2009

  50. [58]

    Viro,Hyperfields for Tropical Geometry I

    O. Viro,Hyperfields for Tropical Geometry I. Hyperfields and dequantization(2010), arXiv:1006.3034

    2010 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Zeilberger,A combinatorial approach to matrix algebra, Discrete Math.56(1), (1985), 61–72

    D. Zeilberger,A combinatorial approach to matrix algebra, Discrete Math.56(1), (1985), 61–72. Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel Current address: Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel Email address:rowen@ma...

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.